Key result
Field-based activation of the catheterization team yielded more false-positive activations than emergency department activation (39% vs 9%; absolute difference 30%, 95% CI 8-52%, p=0.02).
Why the study?
Does field-based activation compared to ED activation reduce door-to-balloon times or false-positive activations in EMS patients with suspected STEMI?
Population
56 EMS patients identified by out-of-hospital 12-lead ECG with potential ST-segment elevation myocardial…
Comparison
Field-based activation of the coronary… vs Emergency department activation at the…
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Field activation was associated with more false positives; leaves open optimal STEMI activation strategy.
Observational (n=56)
No
Does field-based activation compared to ED activation reduce door-to-balloon times or false-positive activations in EMS patients with suspected STEMI?
Effect estimate: absolute difference 30% (95% CI 8 to 52)
Absolute Event Rate: 39% vs 9%
p-value: p=0.02
Emergency physician activation of the cath lab for suspected STEMI results in fewer false-positive activations without significantly delaying door-to-balloon times compared to automated field activation.
Youngquist et al. (2008) conducted an observational in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=56). Field-based activation of the coronary catheterization team vs. Emergency department (ED) activation was evaluated on false-positive activations (absolute difference 30%, 95% CI 8 to 52, p=0.02). Field-based activation of the catheterization team yielded more false-positive activations than emergency department activation (39% vs 9%; absolute difference 30%, 95% CI 8-52%, p=0.02).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: